Misplaced Pages

Talk:Evolution

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.60.111.5 (talk) at 01:05, 4 December 2005 (→Hmmm....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:05, 4 December 2005 by 69.60.111.5 (talk) (→Hmmm....)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:Farcfailed

WikiProject iconEvolutionary biology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Template:TrollWarning

Talk archives

Missing from the article

I believe one or more important types of biological evolution are missing from this article. See Horizontal gene transfer, Antigenic shift (important in current H5N1 avian flu problem), Reassortment. WAS 4.250 20:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would classify those as mutations, and as I repeatedly have to emphasise, mutations do not cause evolution. Mutations are like background noise; they are too few in number to effect any noticeable change, even big mutations (1/N=~0). Evolution only occurs when a mechanism of evolution (i.e. selection, drift or migration) acts on a novel mutation to change that frequency upwards. If that is not enough, a high level of mutations required to produce evolution induces sterility in fruit flies.— Dunc|☺ 21:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I put this suggestion in the more appropriate talk page (for mutation). But mutation in general is given very little space here; it is the engine that causes the variation that is selected among in the process of evolution and everyone agrees selection can select OUT stuff - maybe a litttle more data on how that variation gets IN the genes in the first place would help. Also genes crossing from one part of the tree of life to another (Horizontal gene transfer) should be at least mentioned. Its not as neat and tidy as the typical evolutionary tree would have it. WAS 4.250 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be technical, since evolution is defined as change in allele frequency, mutations necessarily cause evolution. Of course, what we mostly care about isn't evolution in general, but adaptative evolution, which mutations alone are not sufficient to explain, and where selection becomes vital. I think we would do well to talk more about the limited role of mutation, both because it belongs and because it would be good for the article to anticipate and resolve the common confusion about evolution being random just because mutations are. We should certainly list the various sources of mutation, as well as things like crossing over, which aren't mutations as such but can have much the same effect. Alienus 23:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
But do mutations change allele frequency? Only in extremely small populations - the change from 1.0 to 0.999 (a mutation in a population of 500 diploids) isn't really a change in allele frequency - 0.999 is not significantly different from 1.0. As for crossing over - does it actually split genes? Guettarda 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I made no claims about the magnitude of the change, just that it constitutes change of some sort, hence qualifies as evolution. Having thought about it, it occurs to me that mutation can introduce a brand new allele, which may then become quite popular if it is selected for. Consider a mutant fly with resistance to DDT; a significant bit of evolution, triggered by a fit mutation. Again, it's something of a technicality, but I think a meaningful one. As for crossing over, it can definitely cause gross chromosomal abnormalities, which certainly qualifies as a mutation, and I seem to remember that it can split genes, thus potentially changing or even creating alleles. If I'm right about this, it should be mentioned somewhere. And if I'm wrong, that fact likewise deserves mention. Alienus23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
If you define mutation evolution as "change in gene frequency" it has to mean significant change. Gene frequencies are not static - you will, necessarily have some variation from generation to generation. Change has to be significant change in order to call it evolution. Otherwise evolution becomes a trivial concept. Guettarda 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think of mutation as a "change in gene frequency" - instead it is the creation of a gene when neither of the parents had the gene. Trivial changes like the variation from generation to generation are what evolution is all about, and evolution itself is trivial. Natural selection and the modern synthesis are more complicated and interesting. What is really interesting is that those trivial changes from one generation to another are not entirely random, because the more fit organisms have a better chance to increase the frequency of their own genes in the population. With enough time the trivial changes are not so trivial. --Ignignot 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Meant to say "evolution", not "mutation". Oops. Guettarda 05:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

mutation can introduce a brand new allele ... Where else would alleles come from? WAS 4.250 14:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think crossing over can produce a new allele but doesn't qualify as mutation. I may well be wrong about this. Alienus 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mutation could indeed receive a better treatment here; for example, I think a discussion of mutations that might produce gene duplication is in order, since this is believed to be a major mechanism for evolution of new proteins. Horizontal gene transfer, maybe... I don't know if I'd consider crossing over (recombination) to be mutation or not... If all these processes that alter DNA are considered the article could balloon quickly. Graft 16:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed about the gene dupe stuff; we might want to mention myoglobin and hemoglobin as an example. Another good one, documented in a recent Dawkins book, is duplication of the genes for the light-sensitive chemical (name eludes me at the moment) in retinal cones. As for the mutation issue, see above and also, how about a broader heading, like "Sources of genetic variation"? Alienus 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I've found the article lacking too. "Sources of genetic variation" seems a good idea. -- Ec5618 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Great, we've resolved to pin the bell on the cat. Now all we need is for someone to step up and implement what we've agreed upon. Any takers? Alienus 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Embryology

Why nothing on embryology? (unsigned)

The study of embryological development? I have heard that the embryos of hmans and other mammals and even birds look strikingly similar in the first stages of development. Humans have tails and slits that look like gills (but are not). Oddly, embryo doesn't say anything on the subject, and neither does embryology.
Still, I don't quite see why the evolution article should include information about embryos. -- Ec5618 15:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Embryology/comparative embryology should be mentioned in evidence for evolution but that page is a bit of a mess. — Dunc|☺ 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments "disproving" evolution.

First off, let me begin by saying that I am a supporter of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis as well, if that's reassuring at all. I am not suggesting there is evidence or an argument proving evolution false.

Still, however, there is a big amount of people claiming evolution is nothing more but a load of rubbish. Here are the numbers of adherents to various religions, taken from the article on religion: 

1. Christianity: 1.9 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Hinduism: 1 billion
4. Buddhism: 400 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Primal-Indigenous: 300 million
7. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
8. Sikhism: 23 million
9. Spiritism: 15 million
10. Judaism: 14 million
11. Bahá'í: 7 million
12. Jainism: 4.2 million
13. Shinto: 4 million
14. Cao Dai: 4 million
15. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
16. Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga : 2 million
17. Tenrikyo: 2 million
18. Unification Movement: 1.5 million
19. Ayyavazhi: 1.2 million
20. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
21. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
22. Rastafari movement: 600 thousand

The first two of these for example, Christianity and Islam, are held to contradict evolution by the majority of their followers. Aside from groups like Creationists, both the Bible and the Qoran mention God creating the various species. With that, rendering evolution compatible with these faiths requires a rather liberal interpretations of God's word.

Thus, with so many fierce deniers of the theory, I believe that it would be highly beneficial to provide a list of some common counter arguments and show why they do not disprove evolution(if they do not). The article on the technocratic movement has such as a section the format of which I believe could be used.

I understand that a wikipedia article is not a discussion forum, but an article on a theory as controversial as evolution cannot be complete without some information given on the origins of that controversy.

That is covered in the social effect section. As is explained there, accepting evolutionary biology as science is not viewed as contradicting Christianity by the major mainstream Christian churches, who do not follow Biblical innerancy, along with many other religions, including many of the other examples you cite above. Please check your facts.
As for scientific arguments against evolution, there are none. — Dunc|☺ 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
See also creation-evolution controversy--Nowa 22:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
All you need is right here. That's the best place on the web debunking the common and not-so-common creationist arguments. We would never even get this Misplaced Pages article within a shadow of approaching the depth and utility of that page, so it's best not to try - just link it. --Cyde 10:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the author is suggesting we need to include the anti-evolutionary issues as fact but that they are sufficiently widespread that they must be acknowledged in the context of this article. I agree, however, that keeping them to a different page is preferable - if only to keep the article manageable! --Davril2020 13:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The current version of the article contains a section on "Social controversies" which links to relevant articles about religious and other objections to evolution. The primary article on evolution should be about what evolution is, just as the primary article on AIDS should be on mainstream, expert assessments of the disease rather than the more fringe theories (which are linked to at the end of the article). Whether something is "mainstream" or "fringe" in this sense has no relationship to the number of non-experts who believe in it. --Fastfission 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I like that phrase "The truth of X has nothing to do with the number of non-experts who believe in it"--Nowa 22:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Extinction

Can someone provide a reference for the "50% of all genera" figure? I'd be inclined to say the number is actually much, much higher than this. Graft 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are refering to recently added stuff by me, I copied the data from the relevent extinction articles here at Misplaced Pages. Going to those articles for their source lists is one option. (It really sucks when people replace quotes with a paraphrase or move a reference to a data item to the bottom so you can't tell what reference supports what statement.) WAS 4.250 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sooooo much vandalism

It really sucks that this page is being targeted so often by immature brats who know their evidence against evolution is so weak that their only recourse is vandalism. I'm not suggesting that we lock up this page, but rather, continue to improve it so often that the vandalism edits are drowned in a sea of positive edits. It just gets tiring looking at the edit history and seeing that most of it is a cycle of random IP vandalizing and then being reverted. --Cyde 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid stupidity knows no ideological or philosophical home. The creationism and evolution-creationism controversy pages are equally bad. --Davril2020 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Ironically, the very theory of "intelligent design" is proof that it wasn't. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You both are entirely accurate (Davril2020 and Cyde.) On Abortion, another divisive topic, we regularly revert both tirades against the "facist white male bible-thumping republicans" (those are presumably from the pro-choice idiots) and edits where every instance of the word "abortion" (including, oddly enough, in the section on spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage) with "MURDER" and every instance of physician or doctor with "MURDERER" (presumably from the pro-life version of moron.) Really, complete idiocy is non-partisan in any dispute. Vigilance is the only answer.
I like your attitude, Cyde - may I add that to my user page, and quote and/or reference it? KillerChihuahua 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course - actually, I don't think I'm even allowed to say that you aren't because of the GNU FDL! --Cyde 00:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
ROFL, I wasn't thinking about that in this context - thanks much though, I appreciate it. KillerChihuahua 00:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You can not only say it, you can sue about it. The copyright license you agreed to in contributing just means you'll lose if you sue. But you already knew that... WAS 4.250 18:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm....

This article is a little POV, isn't it? Can we at least attempt to present both sides (which is gratuitously done on the intelligent design page)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.111.5 (talk • contribs)

The article presents both majority and minority viewpoints in their proper proportions, according to NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". FeloniousMonk 23:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The majority of people reject evolution, even a susbstantial number of scientists do not suscribe to Darwinism. It isn't just a mere "minority" position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.111.5 (talk • contribs)
The majority of people aren't conducting science, either. This is a science article, so the majority point remains valid. FeloniousMonk 23:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You are mistaken. A very large majority of scientists accept evolution. An even larger number of Earth and life scientists approaching 99%. --JPotter 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
What percentage of 'scientists' are atheists? Is the "scientists'" POV all that matters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.111.5 (talk • contribs)
This is an article on the science of evolution. The opinion of Aunt Mabel down the street is hardly pertinent now, is it? And creationists are only anything approaching a majority in the USA. - Randwicked 23:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll ask again...what percentage of scientists are atheists? If it weren't for the atheistic bias, evolution wouldn't be anything more than a fringe theory.
I'm a scientist and an "a-theist" as are all scientists by definition. Can I answer a question for you?--Nowa 23:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually if it weren't for the evidence evolution wouldn't be anything more than a fringe theory. Of course, the same goes for all theories. You are simply ignorant of the vast amount of evidence that exists in favor of evolution. --Cyde 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What does their religion have to do with anything? That's not germane. KillerChihuahua 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Atheists are biased, and narrow-minded by definition---they will do whatever they can to avoid God and denigrate religion. Since intelligent design dares to suggest a Creator, atheistic scientists automatically put it down, labeling it "pseudoscience" 69.60.111.5

Atheists are biased, and narrow-minded by definition that's a good one, and of course religious fundementalists are well known for their broad mindedness and objectivity. Scientists merely draw conclusions from evidence and testable hypothesis, rather than blind faith. The former overwhelmingly supports evolution. G-Man 00:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
In general, there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity, so scientists can be expected to be less religious simply because of their overall level of education. Furthermore, to the extent that certain religions, particularly those considered fundamentalist, require adherents to deny the conclusions of science, scientists are less likely to be members of these religions. In short, it's not that atheism causes science but that science is conducive to atheism. Alienus 23:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much the only reason education and religosity are negatively correlated is because of pervasive anti-religious bias in universities. And what "certain religions" require denial of science? Have you looked into creation science? There is a ton of evidence for a worldwide flood, for one example. 69.60.111.5

Please, you're making a fool of yourself. You should just go away now and not vandalize these pages. Alienus 01:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. Please enlighten yourself. --Cyde 01:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people like the phrase: "Don't feed the troll." WAS 4.250 01:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I bow to your superior wisdom. As much as we all should try to give people the benefit of the doubt, answer their honest questions and give them plenty of our time, there comes a point -- sometimes quite quickly -- when there's nothing to do but dismiss them and move on. Alienus 01:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
No, at this point is when you send the dissenter over to Talk.Origins. We're always glad to have another creationist to discuss with ... the crop we currently have are getting frightfully boring. --Cyde 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is proof for a worldwide flood, as evidenced through science and the Holy Bible. If you all want to believe you come from a chimp, and that life sprung out of some puddle, and whatever other fairy tales you dreamt up, that's fine, just don't force your godless "theories" on my children 69.60.111.5

OK, it's a deal; you don't push religious dogma in science articles, and we won't educate your kids. I think Raul's law #5 applies here. FeloniousMonk 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The only "religious dogma" here is macroevolution, of which there is no evidence for. You completely ignored the link I providded which contained scientific proof of a worldwide flood, and denounced any opposition to Darwinism as "religious dogma". Spoken like a true atheist...

No evidence for macroevolution? See triticale, which is experimental verification of marcroevolution observed in nature. It's ridiculous to call something "religious dogma" if was actually duplicated in the lab over 100 years ago. Guettarda 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
That's called microevolution. Until you show me an ant change into an elephant, macroevolution is nothing but an atheist religious myth. 69.60.111.5
Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to use the words "atheist" and "religious" one after the other? --Cyde Weys 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Atheism is a religion. It fits all the criteria. In fact, it takes much more 'faith' to be an atheist than to believe in any other religion, given all the evidence for God's existance. 69.60.111.5
There, I've linked "atheism" in your post for you so you can easily go look up the real definition of the word you're so terribly misusing. --Cyde Weys 21:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Atheism - faith in the nonexistance of God. The vast majority of people define atheism that way. And you still haven't shown evidence of macroevolution. 69.60.111.5
It seems to me like you're incapable of reading, or at least incapable of following internet links. The relevant quote (and it's in the very first line) from the article is thus: atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. It takes faith to believe in a god; but the absence of a believe does not require faith. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you prove that God doesn't exist? No, you can't. There's as much (more, actually) evidence for God as there is against. Despite this, you still believe in the nonexistance of God, making it a faith-based/religious assertion. 69.60.111.5
It's a troll. You have literally nothing to gain from feeding it. Don't bother. --Davril2020 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Troll, I grow weary of you. Fuck off. You're welcome on Talk.Origins if you wish, but I don't think you could handle it. --Cyde 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk Origins? Yes, that's a nice, unbiased site...LOL! You might as well send me to American Atheists. 69.60.111.5
Would you want me to dismiss the entire Bible (pretty much your only "evidence")? No, you wouldn't want that? Then you can't dismiss all of Talk.Origins merely because you disagree with it. In a debate you're not allowed to dismiss facts because of the source they come from ... and depending on how you do it, it can be an ad hominem attack (as was you making fun of T.O's unbiasedness and comparing it to an unrelate organization). No, you have to address those facts. By dismissing the best source on the topic out of hand and refusing to examine any of its evidence, you are, in effect, declaring that you lose the debate. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And anyway, talk.origins is not a "site", it's a Usenet discussion group. It's not "biased" - anyone is allowed to go and discuss there. By refusing to go to the best place online where your views can be heard and debated by all, you are admitting that your views are weak and in a discussion forum where all views are heard you know they wouldn't stand up. And there are quite a few creationists on talk.origins anyways. --Cyde Weys 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen. I have been away for only a few days, and look what I come back to find.  ;-)

  • Not sure what is "godless" about evolution, in my system of faith all truth is God's truth, even if it seems to conflict with a literal interpretation of the language used in the Bible (which I believe is God's word). For example, there may be other interpretations of the Bible (such as God created the evolutionary evidence to confound us all). Whatever the truth about the Bible is, that content is not really appropriate for a page on a naturalistic explanation of biological change.
  • On the other hand, it is extremely important to understand that science has a POV, it is "naturalistic" in its epistemology and ontology, and is, therefore, completely unable to comment on either the existence (or not) of God, or of God's abilities. Science (evolution) is not about faith, nor should it be. Again, that does not threaten me or my POV. I understand and embrace the scientific POV. But, I also understand its limitations, and that it is unable to explain faith, God, or the supernatural (because they are not natural, they are supernatural). Therefore, I do not want a page on naturalistic explanation of biological change to comment on matters of faith.
  • Finally, what can we say about the role of science (evolution) in religion. I'm sure that religious texts (including the Bible) were NOT written as a treatise on the scientific or the naturalistic. Rather, there intent is really to demonstrate what is appropriate faith. In the case of evolution, Biblical teachings are not damaged by evolutionary ideas, only enhanced by them. My faith is not threatened by the truth about nature. And, I am sure that God is not threatened by our scientific understanding of biological change. In any case, my faith and belief is my faith and belief, and inappropriate of a page on scientific understanding.

That is my POV, Steven McCrary 05:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice! Two thumbs up! I wish more theists were as understanding as you. --Cyde 07:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Many of us do. Don't assume things too quickly. Guettarda 13:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
How is God enhanced by Darwinism?? You're throwing Genesis in the garbage. 69.60.111.5
You're making the big, big mistake of conflating God with your literal interpretation of Christianity. And please sign your posts. --Cyde Weys 21:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The Bible explicity states that God created humans in 6 days, and as they are today. To be a true Christian and believe we come from a monkey is impossible. 69.60.111.5
Actually, Genesis 1 relates God creating man in less than a day. Genesis 2 has no time indicated on man's creation. John 1 has man created before time. (IMHO)--Nowa 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You're use the logically fallacious No true Scotsman argument. Have a nice day. The fact is that there are MANY "true" Christians who believe in the scientifically-verified true age of the universe and Earth and also biological evolution. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And anyway, what is your definition of a "true Christian"? Is it this? How about this? --Cyde Weys 21:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Cyde two good points here, both the Scotsman point and the "true" interpretation. Steven McCrary 00:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Only one who believes in everything in the Holy Bible can be a real Christian. You can't just choose to believe in whatever part makes you feel good. Too many "Christians" today do that to appease the atheists. 69.60.111.5
Which Bible are you referring to?--Nowa 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The evolution page as is, seems to adequately address the social issues, thus providing an NPOV, including faith issues. If anyone is really interested in my faith, I would be happy to exchange email, but this is really not the appropriate place. Steven McCrary 22:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok Break it up!

<drill sergent>
Misplaced Pages is not usenet, ladies! And if the darn policy page forgot to mention that one (policy pages are apt to do that a lot these days), I don't particularly care, because wikipedia IS an encyclopedia!


So less of the yappity yappity usenet quack, and more of the cooperating on writing an encyclopedia!

Company, GO BACK ON TOPIC! <blows whistle>
</drill sergent>

Kim Bruning 07:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kim,
  • Thanks for the reminder. However, I am unsure why the "cooperating" and the "ladies" comment is necessary? Is a POV involved there?
  • I have tried to be careful to direct my comments directly to the content of the main page, i.e., should matters of faith be included on the evolution page. Especially since the topic of evolution strikes very close to matters of faith. What I was trying to say was that the issues of faith do not belong on the evolution page, and tried to explain why; if that intent was unclear, then I take responsibility, and hope to correct it now.
  • "Sarge," I share your concern about the "yappity" yap, however I do believe we are on topic. Democratic processes are not like military ones; democratic processes (which is also a wiki policy) encourage the give-and-take approach to decision making, military processes encourage more "top-down" and autocratic decision making. Democratic process demands a great deal of communication skill, which includes patience, we cannot shorten the process. Education is a very painful process, in this case education about the role of science in faith, and vice-versa. So the editors of this page must allow that process to occur. Evolution causes change in our ideas, our institutions, and our relationships; all change is painful, but especially corporate change regarding faith. So we feel more of that pain on this page than on others. Again, discussing the role of faith in evolution is on topic.

Steven McCrary 15:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Oh the pain, the pain" Z. Smith Phd. 17:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC:-)
Categories: